Hilary Rosen, Foster Freiss, And The Permanent Campaign Silly Season

Thanks to a media that focuses obsessively on irrelevancies, we now have a permanent political silly season.

Steven Taylor’s post this morning about an admittedly stupid off-the-cuff remark made by former Rick Santorum  supporter Foster Freiss reminds me of an observation that MSNBC’s First Read noted yesterday after the political media had spent all day Thursday on the Hilary Rosen comments about Ann Romney:

If this first week of the general election has taught us anything, this is going to be a long next six months. It started with the Obama White House and campaign ham mering away at the “Buffett Rule,” which was more of an effort to embarrass Mitt Romney (and his low effective tax rate) than a realistic policy proposal. And then on Wednesday and Thursday, the Romney campaign seized on comments by Hilary Rosen, a Democratic strategist with thin ties to the White House, who said that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life. It was a manufactured controversy — fueled by Twitter and social media — because no serious political actor in this presidential contest is criticizing stay-at-home moms or the value of the work they do.

(…)

Of course, manufactured controversies are nothing new in American politics. There was Nixon’s famous “Checkers” speech. Even four years ago, political observers were obsessing over Michelle Obama’s patriotism and John McCain’s seven homes. What is new, however, is how much faster and professionalized — due to Twitter and the drive to make something go viral — these manufactured controversies have become. Indeed, we’ve now seen three of them in the past 30 days: Etch A Sketch, hot mic, and Hilary Rosen. Now all three were related to a bigger issue or narrative (doubts about Romney’s true beliefs and ideology, conservative suspicions about Obama’s intentions, and a real gender gap in American politics). But, unfortunately, we talk about the manufactured controversy and not the real story here (that a general-election candidate always moves back to the center, that a president’s second term with no more elections on the horizon does give him more flexibility to do certain things, and that women do have real anxieties about the balance between working and raising a family). The fact is, these next few months before the conventions are probably going to be filled with these manufactured “shiny metal object” controversies because of what we noted — just how professionalized both political parties are at creating them. And some in the media are easily susceptible to helping these manufactured controversies go viral because they are seen as simply “more interesting” than the serious “eat your vegetables”-like issues that divide the two parties.

This led Brendan Nyhan to make this comment about the dangers of the manner in which the media lets itself get drawn into what are, in the end, faux controversies:

As NBC’s First Read points out, while “manufactured controversies are nothing new in American politics,” what is new “is how much faster and professionalized—due to Twitter and the drive to make something go viral—these manufactured controversies have become.” Such controversies can be especially potent as we enter what First Read calls “silly season.” When few competing stories exist and political reporters are starved for material, any whiff of scandal or controversy can create a feeding frenzy (PDF). A bored media is dangerous for politicians.

As an example, Nyhan points to the rumor that swept through the political Twitterverse and blogosphere earlier this month that South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley was about to be indicated in a Federal Tax Fraud investigation. As it turned out  the story, which had originated on a South Carolina political blog with a clear anti-Haley agenda, was quickly passed around on Twitter where its credibility was immediately assumed, picked up by the largest newspaper in the state, and eventually the national media. I linked to the story on Twitter, and James Joyner wrote about it here at OTB. As it turned out, though, there was absolutely no merit to the story because Haley herself was not investigation by the FBI or the IRS.

At least in that case, though, the rapidly spreading story could be considered relevant. After all, it’s not every day that you see a story about a sitting Governor being investigated by the FBI and the immediate, and logical, assumption would be that there must be something substantial there . That’s not even close to true about most of the stuff that makes up the permanent silly season that American politics has turned into.

Take the Hilary Rosen story, for example. As I noted in my original post on that story, her comments were dumb and it’s easy to see how it could be seen as offensive by women who had chosen to stay at home for all or part of the time that their children were growing up. Not surprisingly, that led to a wildly partisan exchange in the comment thread that seemed to miss the point that every single Obama campaign operative, along with the First Lady, President and Vice-President, had condemned Rosen’s comments. To me, the only potentially interesting part of the entire affair was the extent to which it had quickly galvanized conservatives who had been on the fence about Romney to go on the offensive for him. Certainly, by the time that Rosen had issued her apology later that day, including a bizarre on-camera appearance on CNN where Wolf Biltzer asked her to look into the camera and “speak to Ann Romney,” the story should have been over and done with. Of course it wasn’t. When Friday morning came, conservatives continued to push the meme of what had developed to a Twitter hashtag called #WarOnMoms, and some on the left continued to defend Rosen. A story that was probably blown out of proportion to begin with has taken on a life of its own thanks solely to the obsessive need of the cable news media to talk about something, anything in order to fill up air time and the eagerness of partisans on both sides to get on the air and score points against the others side. What does it actually accomplish? Nothing.

The same can be said about the Foster Freiss story. as I’ve noted in the comments to Steven’s post, I fail to understand why this is even a story. Foster Freiss is not a campaign surrogate, he’s not a Romney adviser. He’s a guy in Texas who said something dumb on Lou Dobbs’s show on Fox Business Network, a show that averages less than 100,000 viewers a night hosted by a man who long ago lost whatever journalistic credibility he ever had. Why is what he says news, whether it’s this stupid attempt at a joke, or his comments back in February about contraception? Many people in the comments to Steven’s post are asserting that the fact that Freiss a big donor makes his comments relevant, but that’s circular logic. Unless you’re going to go through FEC reports and talk to all of the big money donors for all the candidates why are the dumb comments of one man worthy of any attention at all? And if Freiss’s dumb comments are worthy of attention, does that also make the things that Bill Maher has said about women relevant since he’s donated $1,000,000 to Obama’s SuperPAC? The answer, of course, is that neither donor’s comments are particularly relevant. But they make for good media coverage and a juicy headline (which is probably what motivated ABC News to post about the Fries interview to begin with). It tells us nothing about the candidates, though, and it provides the voters with absolutely no useful information.

We saw the same thing last month with the whole Etch A Sketch meme, which turned out to have very little impact outside of the political media itself. As I noted at the time, the press does the public a disservice when it focuses on irrelevancies like these. Does it really matter to the Republic that a Romney campaign aide made a comment involving an old children’s game, or that a Washington lobbyist with no connection to any political campaign made a dumb comment on Anderson Cooper’s show, or that some old guy from Texas has a tendency to say dumb things? The only thing that the media accomplishes when they focus on stories like this is that it lets them fill up air time with mindless commentary. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that just because something gets a lot of coverage on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox that this means that it is worthy of that attention, or that our so-called “professional journalists” are doing anything other than phoning it in these days.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. Hey Norm says:

    “…The only things that the media accomplishes when they focus on stories like this is that it lets them fill up air time with mindless commentary…”

    Yet by your own admission you let them shape your commentary.

    “…Because bloggers are often wont to write about whatever the story of the day happens to be, even when it’s incredibly stupid?”

    Not to be overly cliche…but try being the change you wish to see in the world.

    And you are still missing the signifigance of the Etch-a-Sketch thing.

    “…“According to a Romney adviser, his private view of immigration isn’t as anti-immigrant as he often sounded…”

  2. al-Ameda says:

    Doug, I see your points but …

    There is a a Kabuki aspect to our modern campaigns – one side pretends to be shocked by the errant or misunderstood comments, while the other issues an apology along the lines of ‘I regret that anyone was offended ….’ Fortunately, we go through these “news” cycles really rapidly now.

    It’s a 24/7, quantity not quality infotainment world now.

  3. @al-Ameda:

    It’s a 24/7, quantity not quality infotainment world now.

    Yes it is. And the American people seem to be fine with remaining fat, dumb, and happy with their Breads And Circuses.

  4. al-Ameda says:

    @Doug Mataconis:
    I agree, however to me, zero minds are changed by this Kabuki. Nor, do I believe, that are there enough of those so-called “independents” around to be “offended” by this stuff.

    I can tell you that my attitude toward Friess (or by extension, Republican candidates) is not changed by his comments, nor have Rosen’s comments caused me to believe that Democrats (specifically, President Obama) are hostile to stay-at-home women.

  5. @al-Ameda:

    I tend to agree, and as I noted in this post there’s little evidence that the public actually pays much attention to all this media fascination with the stupid things. Nonetheless that doesn’t mean the media isn’t doing a really crappy job of covering politics these days.

  6. al-Ameda says:

    @Doug Mataconis:
    The on-air and electronic media has ADD, they’ve got too much time to kill and this stuff is just the empty calories that they crave.

    By the way, did you see Wolf Blitzer’s cringe inducing performance on CNN’s The Situation Room? He attacked Hillary Rosen for smiling and chided her for her comments. I half expected Wolf to go to a split-screen real-time shot of Ann Romney crying.

  7. dennis says:

    What makes all this dangerous, Doug, is that, generally, the U.S. citizenry doesn’t have or is too lazy to use rudimentary analysis when looking at these issues, let alone critical thinking skills to effectively wade through the b.s. to get to the heart of a matter.

    Basically, stupid is dangerous.

  8. dennis says:

    @al-Ameda:

    “By the way, did you see Wolf Blitzer’s cringe inducing performance on CNN’s The Situation Room?”

    What’s tragic is that CNN, in an effort to appear non-biased, has morphed itself into an attack-anything-liberal news agency. I cannot count how many times lately I’ve rolled my eyes at Blitzer and John King for letting right-wing guests slide for the most outrageous comments and outright lies.

  9. @al-Ameda:

    Yes I did see, and I linked it in the post above. It almost reminded me of a hostage video, and it reminded me that, in the end, Wolf Blitzer is a really crappy journalist.

  10. al-Ameda says:

    @dennis:
    The (so-called) Liberal Media is completely cowed by the Conservative Right, that’s why guys like Wolf Blitzer sell out so effortlessly.

  11. I don’t think ideology has anything to do with it. They’re in this for ratings, not serious analysis and the thing that gets ratings is simplistic analysis, sensationalism, and coverage of the most trivial stories possible

  12. dennis says:

    @al-Ameda:

    Agreed. Hilary Rosen was correct in her statements. No way on this green earth is someone with millions of dollars in reserve, living off the interest and making even more money, going to have a clue about what the average person is going through. I think she should have doubled down on the comment, while emphasizing she’s not criticizing Mrs. Romney personally.

    And I’m disappointed in the Obama operatives. They should have picked this up and extrapolated it right onto the “War on Women” theme. It’s not that I’m in the tank for Obama and the Democrats. I’m of the opinion that Romney, beholden to the conservative tribe, will continue to get us into more wars, pull out the social safety net from those who need and count on it, and basically continue the same cut-taxes-for-the-wealthy policies that created this mess in the first place.

  13. Lit3Bolt says:

    Great post and update on the fake campaign news. Quality work Doug for wading through the fake meme swamp.

    Thanks for the Wolf Blitzer segment. That was just plain creepy.

    My question is if being a stay at home mom is the most important job ever, why does it pay nothing?

  14. John425 says:

    What makes the Rosen situation so rare is the blowback from the left. They usually believe they can slander and smear conservatives with impunity. And…the MSM fosters them.

  15. @Lit3Bolt:

    My question is if being a stay at home mom is the most important job ever, why does it pay nothing?

    While I am glad you liked the post, I’ve got to say that kind of question is an insult to parents everywhere.

  16. dennis says:

    @John425:

    “They usually believe they can slander and smear conservatives with impunity. And…the MSM fosters them.”

    Your lack of awareness is astounding.

  17. al-Ameda says:

    @John425:

    “What makes the Rosen situation so rare is the blowback from the left. They usually believe they can slander and smear conservatives with impunity.”

    What liberal believes that telling the truth about conservatives is tantamount to slandering and smearing conservastives?

  18. Jeremy R says:

    Unfortunately you’re probably going to need to get used to it. In 2008 the McCain campaign’s media strategy consisted of daily goofy stunts and manufactured outrages which they used, often effectively, to drive the media narrative for that cycle. The Romney campaign seems to be much more willing to pepper their faux outrages, stump speeches and surrogates with outright falsehoods, really like no mainstream candidacy I’ve ever seen, in order to peruse a chosen narrative. The media, so far, mostly rolling over to the constant dishonesty, doesn’t bode well for the coming campaign season. I’m fully expecting to shout myself hoarse at feckless news anchors and grind my teeth into nubs reading drudge-cribbing hacks like Tapper and Halperin.

  19. Hey Norm says:

    If I were “programming” this site stories like Rosen and Feiss would never get out of the “Quick Takes” and the Billboard Posts would be pieces that took some thought and reflection…Billboard Pieces as it were.
    The Quick Takes probably get nearly as many page views anyway.
    But the Billboard Posts would be more reflective of what the OTB writers are thinking…not just what they’re responding to. They should be driving conversations…not following conversations.
    We have a saying at our firm…make really cool stuff…the money will follow.

  20. dennis says:

    In a not-too unrelated topic, a blog is reporting that a prominent Christian ministry observed the anniversary of the Titanic’s sinking by likening evolution and feminism to an iceberg that is causing America’s moral and cultural decline:

    “Though more than 1,500 people died in this international tragedy, the Darwinian notion of the ‘survival of the fittest’ was rejected in favor of the age-old Christian doctrine that the ‘strong sacrifice for the weak,’” Phillips said in a statement.

    This statement begs the question: If the “age-old” Christian doctrine is that the strong sacrifice for the weak (and I don’t doubt it), what is the problem that conservative Christians have with the social programs for the poor and needy? The Romneys, being religious and who, most certainly, have been charitable with their wealth, should be supporting these social programs as the strong supporting and sacrificing for the weak.

    Instead, we get Romney embracing Ryan’s budget cuts to SS, Medicare and other social spending, and publicly planning to eliminate Planned Parenthood. All the while getting bent out of shape because they were called out on the truth of how they live. This is not living up to the “age-old Christian doctrine.” Hmm . . .

  21. @john personna:

    Obviously, your definition of “be serious” is “accept my paritsanly-biased premises”

  22. @Doug Mataconis:

    Huh? That is a web app that shows the effects of tax strategies. I didn’t define a strategy for you.

    (Actually, I picked up a link from Marginal Revolution that had some change cooked in somehow, but you can ‘reset’ and begin again.)

    Gawd, I don’t know what was worse in that, that you think an app you can customize to your heart’s content is force-fed, or that you think I’m in someone’s party.

  23. FWIW, if this link works, it shows what I came up with. It shows you’ve got to hit everyone pretty hard to come up with serious revenue. Eliminating the Earned Income Credit at the bottom, and raising the top rate to 40% at the top only cuts the deficit by 17.5%.

    Oh, but I forgot, I’m supposed to be feeding you “paritsanly-biased premises” or some such shit.

  24. An Interested Party says:

    Obviously, your definition of “be serious” is “accept my paritsanly-biased premises”

    How is a neutral web app a “paritsanly-biased premise?” I guess even asking to discuss tax rates is now considered a partisan activity…

  25. bk says:

    @John425: This is a guy who thinks that the “Buffett Rule” means “no cutting in line at the Golden Corral”.

  26. Herb says:

    The only thing that the media accomplishes when they focus on stories like this is that it lets them fill up air time with mindless commentary.

    Actually, Conor Friedersdorf has a different idea:

    There’s always some nonsense controversy that can get the base on board.

  27. Tsar Nicholas II says:

    It’s the lowest common denominator principle, in action.

  28. Eric Florack says:

    So now we see Hilary Rosen suing for peace in this little were she started.

    What perhaps is least understood about this process, is that that is precisely what negotiated settlements are for; winning in discussion when the one in the war itself. The real deal about this is that Hilary Rosen is one of the establishment players in the Democrat party. Hers is the kind of non thought that goes on at the most basic of levels within that party.

    When she says Ann Romney is never had a job in their life, which he’s really saying is she’s rich and privileged. Perhaps she isn’t aware that even after feminism, the majority of moms are stay at home moms. And a lot of them stay at home because they can’t afford government-licensed child care. A mom staying at home and raising the kids, you see, is a traditional value. They view it as a thing of the past. Tell me again who is out of touch with mainstream America.

    And even if she was rich, these are people who worked hard to get to where they are. Individually successful, in other words. Liberals can’t stand this, so they come up with nonsense like Rosen did. And let me tell you; This is the kind of knee-jerk non-thought their governmental policies come from, once they have the power to implement them.

    Here’s a message for you, Hillary; if Ann Romney isn’t allowed to talk about the economy because she doesn’t have a job then Michelle Obama shouldn’t be talking about nutrition until she’s gotten the size of that backside of hers down to something… human. Hmm?

  29. al-Ameda says:

    We can all agree that Ann has a lot in common with women who elected to stay at home and try to run a household within the limitations of $20 million per year budget. I admire her for her choice.

  30. An Interested Party says:

    When she says Ann Romney is never had a job in their life, which he’s really saying is she’s rich and privileged.

    Actually what she is saying is, as legion wrote on another thread is…

    Ann Romey does not have any idea what working mothers in America have to deal with or consider important. That’s not an insult directed at Ann, or to stay-at-home moms in general, any more than it would be to say that Ann Romney doesn’t know to properly distill vodka or remove an inflamed appendix.

    As for…

    And a lot of them stay at home because they can’t afford government-licensed child care.

    That looks like bull$hit…why don’t you prove that…

    A mom staying at home and raising the kids, you see, is a traditional value. They view it as a thing of the past. Tell me again who is out of touch with mainstream America.

    Actually, the point is that many moms probably don’t have that option, as they have to work to support their families…

    And even if she was rich, these are people who worked hard to get to where they are. Individually successful, in other words. Liberals can’t stand this, so they come up with nonsense like Rosen did. And let me tell you; This is the kind of knee-jerk non-thought their governmental policies come from, once they have the power to implement them.

    More bull$hit…the point is that Ann Romney, because of her wealth, probably shouldn’t be the first source that her husband goes to understand the struggles of working mothers…

    Here’s a message for you, Hillary; if Ann Romney isn’t allowed to talk about the economy because she doesn’t have a job then Michelle Obama shouldn’t be talking about nutrition until she’s gotten the size of that backside of hers down to something… human. Hmm?

    I’m sure this was the point you wanted to make throughout your entire screed…while you are insulting how Michelle Obama looks, I wonder what your wife looks like? Of course, I am being charitable to assume that any woman would want to marry you…

  31. Eric Florack says:

    Now, how did I know you’d be among the first to try this, AIP?
    LOL

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=stay%20at%20home%20can%27t%20afford%20childcare&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.circleofmoms.com%2Fworking-mums%2Fhow-do-you-afford-daycare-for-2-children-617617&ei=WzGLT-HuJaT40gHW7sy2CQ&usg=AFQjCNHXj64l5veydDUBz9i8JNRyPd6amw&cad=rja

    I’m sure this was the point you wanted to make throughout your entire screed…while you are insulting how Michelle Obama looks, I wonder what your wife looks like?

    Rather beside the point. She’s not trying to rule over people’s diets.

    And as I’ve suggested… Stay at home moms are viewed by the left as being outdated. Tell me again who is out of touch.

  32. An Interested Party says:

    LOL

    Save your laughs for some of the comments at your link…

    Wow!!! That is A LOT for one child!!! My daughter is in a home daycare n our neighbourhood and it’s only $30/day and they are so amazing with her (there are 2 ladies running it). My son will be attending there when I return to work in June which will double our expenses. We were just talking about how we could afford a third child to attend daycare. Looks like you need to find a new daycare!!!! That’s insane!

    Having family or friends help out with childcare for a reduced rate as compared to daycare facility helps. We also tried connections through our church. We had a friend from church watch our 2 boys during last summer for a lot cheaper than daycare to help out with our tight budget.

    I’m a nurse so my salary is pretty good. Our daycare is $600/month here in BC, Canada so for 2 it’ll be double. We can write off up to $7000/yr of daycare costs in income tax so this helps. In the end, with our salaries and the cost of daycare, it pays to have both my husband and I working.

    Have you thought about finding a babysitter instead of doing daycare? Might be cheaper! I am a single mom that worked from 4 to whatever time i got done during the week and whatever hours on the weekends. My parents watched my son on the weekends and whenever they were off during the week. I had a babysitter come in whenever there was an overlap in the schedule.

    In other words, there are ways for women to get affordable child care without resorting to the alleged unaffordable “government-licensed child care”…try to make a better argument next time, if you can…

    She’s not trying to rule over people’s diets.

    Neither is Michelle Obama…

    And as I’ve suggested… Stay at home moms are viewed by the left as being outdated. Tell me again who is out of touch.

    You are, as Rosen didn’t claim that stay at home moms are outdated, rather, that is your spin of “the left”…

  33. Davebo says:

    I wonder what your wife looks like?

    Well, she’s not two faced. (Cause if she was she wouldn’t wear that one)…

    Ba Boom!

  34. Eric Florack says:

    Agreed. Hilary Rosen was correct in her statements. No way on this green earth is someone with millions of dollars in reserve, living off the interest and making even more money, going to have a clue about what the average person is going through.

    Perhaps you’d better do a bit more in the way of research on the subject before you speak to the matter again.

  35. Eric Florack says:

    Neither is Michelle Obama…

    Right. From the NY Slimes:

    WASHINGTON — Hoping to combat the growing problem of childhood obesity, the Obama administration on Wednesday announced its long-awaited changes to government-subsidized school meals, a final round of rules that adds more fruits and green vegetables to breakfasts and lunches and reduces the amount of salt and fat.

    DO try again.

  36. dennis says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Please, Eric. Can’t you at least speak from reason instead of your own prejudices, for once? You’re obviously thoughtful, intelligent, and weigh matters. Why can’t you do that objectively, rather than out of your discontent with having a Black president? I’m certain you can come up with reasonable, rational arguments. Instead you continually make an ass of yourself with misplaced and jaded passion. It’s sad to see a good mind going to waste like that.

  37. Jeremy R says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Michelle Obama shouldn’t be talking about nutrition until she’s gotten the size of that backside of hers down to something… human.

    I definitely find this to be one of the strangest of the major conservative obsessions. The First Lady runs miles a day, works out at the gym and is in excellent shape for anyone, but especially for someone her age. I’m not sure what dysfunction causes wingers to see her as anything other than fit — she’s definitely leaner and better toned than any FLOTUS in my lifetime.

  38. Eric Florack says:

    Please, Eric. Can’t you at least speak from reason instead of your own prejudices, for once? You’re obviously thoughtful, intelligent, and weigh matters. Why can’t you do that objectively, rather than out of your discontent with having a Black president?

    Please.
    The issue is liberalism. If my objection to Obama is rooted in Race…. objections I had to Jimmy Carter back in the day are suggestive I was misinformed as to Carter’s racial background. Even you’re not that stupid.

    It is, I’m afraid, a typical reaction of the left to charge racism when there is no other defense. Yours is a prime example.

  39. Eric Florack says:

    I definitely find this to be one of the strangest of the major conservative obsessions. The First Lady runs miles a day, works out at the gym and is in excellent shape for anyone, but especially for someone her age.

    But can’t lay off the 1100 calorie cheesburgers. But I suppose self-control is for the little people… literally.

  40. @Eric Florack:

    Speaking for myself, it matters what I’m doing that week. A person hiking hard, with a pack, burns about 500 calories per hour. Two hours work, and your body needs 1100 calories. Assuming a quality burger, why not?

  41. dennis says:

    @Eric Florack:

    It is, I’m afraid, a typical reaction of the left to charge racism when there is no other defense. Yours is a prime example.

    It may be a typical reaction from the left, but I’m still registered Republican, so I guess we’re both making assumptions.

    To the point:

    then Michelle Obama shouldn’t be talking about nutrition until she’s gotten the size of that backside of hers down to something… human. Hmm?

    When you make statements like that, in light of the good physical shape Mrs. Obama maintains, it’s racial. I’m not calling you racist, Eric; I’m saying your comment is racial. Remember the refrain, “Even White boys got to shout, ‘Baby got back!'”? But that being nothing from nothing, why would you make a mean-spirited comment like that?

  42. An Interested Party says:

    DO try again.

    Umm, in case you didn’t know, Michelle Obama is not part of her husband’s administration, so her going around advocating for healthy eating is hardly “ruling” over other people’s diets…you would do well to follow your own advice about doing a bit more in the way of research on a subject before commenting on the matter…

    @dennis: Floracks’s ODS is quite extreme, so it’s little wonder he would these ridiculous statements about Michelle Obama, a woman who is probably far healthier than he is…

  43. Eric Florack says:

    Speaking for myself, it matters what I’m doing that week. A person hiking hard, with a pack, burns about 500 calories per hour. Two hours work, and your body needs 1100 calories. Assuming a quality burger, why not?

    Because givcen recent photos, it’s not working.

    Umm, in case you didn’t know, Michelle Obama is not part of her husband’s administration, so her going around advocating for healthy eating is hardly “ruling” over other people’s diets…

    And so we should ingire the laws being put into place by her husband’s administration to that end?

    PLease.

  44. Eric Florack says:

    When you make statements like that, in light of the good physical shape Mrs. Obama maintains, it’s racial. I’m not calling you racist, Eric; I’m saying your comment is racial.

    You may want to stop trying to split hairs. You’re not very good at it. The fact of the matter is that your backside gets wider by the day. She is not providing the example she wants to present. Then again, those in power seldom do. she has about as much credibility in that area as Betty Ford on the advantages of sobriety. and you know the difference between them? Betty Ford wasn’t trying to enact law to back up her viewpoint.
    .